Contact

I have started this family law blog to provide up-to-date and accurate information concerning divorce, separation, custody, child support and other family law issues.

I have been a Rochester, New York, family law lawyer since 1996, helping people in Rochester, Monroe County, and nearby counties. I counsel my clients on separation, divorce, custody, custodial relocation, child support, adoption, parental kidnapping, pre-marital agreements, post-marital agreements, and equitable distribution of property issues, such as business interests, stock options, professional licenses, pensions, and profit-sharing plans.

In addition, I handle collaborative family law cases which allow for amicable resolution of family disputes.

My Website

New York Law Updates

Meta

Tag: Monroe

I have previously written about exclusive possession of a marital residence during a pending divorce action. The applicable standard requires a showing of a marital strife and that the parties were unable to coexist in the same house. I recently had an opportunity to litigate this issue in a situation where the parties’ conduct has not arisen to the level of marital strife, but the conflict was affecting the parties’ children. Justice Richard A. Dollinger of the Monroe County Supreme Court reviewed and addressed this issue in L.M.L.v. H.T.N. a/k/a H.T.N., 57 Misc.3d 1207(A) (Sup. Ct. Monroe County 2017).

Having reviewed the history of the marital strife standard, Justice Dollinger wrote that lower courts have generally required more evidence of “strife” than the “petty harassments such as the hostility and contempt admittedly demonstrated herein that are routinely part and parcel of an action for divorce.” However, he also noted that even minimal levels of domestic discord impact children living in a besieged household. Given those circumstances, he wrote that:

The harm of a hostile home environment – populated with foul words, disparaging comments, loud demeaning voices, frequent arguments and verbal fights – and the fear for safety of the mother and the children rise, in this court’s view, to the level of domestic violence that [*10]mandates court intervention.Second, this court concedes that simply separating the parents may not end the torrent of verbal abuse directed at the other parent: even in new separate residences, a parent can unleashed verbal abuse and make demeaning comments about the other parent. The children will be exposed to that language, perhaps even harsher than what would be uttered in the company of both parents. But, the children will be spared the retort, the rising voices, the angry face-to-face confrontations that ensue when a parent begins a verbal argument. This difference — between the comments of separated parents living in separate residences and confrontations of parents living in the same residence — may be seem of minor importance to the judiciary, but it would seem to be easily classified as in the “better interests” of the children.

Justice Dollinger summarized the issues before the court as “[t]he mere suggestion that “exclusive use” should hinge, in any fashion, on the “voluntary establishment of an alternative residence” also suggests that preventing domestic violence may depend, in part, on the untenable notion that the convenience of one party’s ability to secure short-term housing away from the home is somehow more important than the emotional security of the children.” The above holding represents a significant departure from the existing standard. I agree with the decision and have always thought that the marital strife standard was unduly restrictive. I will be interested to see if this decision will be followed by other court in pending divorce cases.

The New York State Court of Appeals ruled last week in Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., 2016 N.Y. Slip. Op. 05903, that a loving caretaker who is not related to, or the adoptive guardian of, a child could still be permitted to ask for custody and visitation rights.

The ruling came from a litigation between a couple, known in family court papers only as Brooke S.B. and Elizabeth A. C.C. In 2008, Elizabeth became pregnant with the couple’s child through artificial insemination. Though Brooke had no legal or biological ties to the child, a boy, she maintained a close relationship with him for years, cutting his umbilical cord at birth, giving him her last name and raising him jointly with Elizabeth. In 2013, after their relationship ended, Elizabeth tried to cut off Brooke’s contact with the boy. Brooke sued for custody and visitation privileges, but was turned down by a lower court, which found that legal precedent pursuant to Alison D. v. Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651 (1991), did not define a non-adoptive, non-biological caretaker as a parent.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals overturned Alison D., stating that “the definition of ‘parent’ established by this court 25 years ago in Alison D. has become unworkable when applied to increasingly varied familial relationships.” It further held that “where a partner shows by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive a child and to raise the child together, the non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing to seek visitation and custody.”

While Brooke S.B. seems to be applicable primarily to same sex couples, it is easy to see that the same type of argument may be applicable to heterosexual couples in situations where one partner is artificially inseminated. The Court of Appeals declined to state what the proper test should be in cases where no preconception agreement can be shown to have existed between nonbiological couple. As far as the proof of the parties’ intent, the courts are likely to look at the parties’ participation such activities as birthing classes, partners’ inclusion on birth notices and other traditional indications of the existence of a pre-conception agreement between a couple.

A mother who lost custody of her children after she broke windows at their father’s house and set fire to his clothes in the driveway should have received an evidentiary hearing, the Court of Appeals has ruled in S.L. v. J.R., 2016 N.Y. Slip. Op. 04442 (2016). According to the filings, the mother, identified as S.L., and the father, identified as J.R., were married in 1997 and had two kids together.

In September 2012, after 15 years of marriage, S.L. filed for divorce from J.R., and sought full custody of the children. Also that month, she texted J.R.—who had moved out of the family’s house several months prior—that she would burn down the house and set his clothes on fire.

J.R. arrived at the house to find his clothes burnt in the driveway and windows at the house smashed out. He filed for temporary sole custody of the children, alleging that he feared for their safety because of incidents involving harassment by S.L. and that she also had extramarital affairs and abused alcohol and drugs.

S.L. admitted to setting fire to J.R.’s wardrobe and her involvement in several other incidents, including a past charge of aggravated assault. In October 2012, the trial ruled that there were “enough red flags” to justify granting temporary sole custody of the children to J.R. In April 2013, S.L.’s visitation was suspended after a therapist determined that it would not be in the best interest of the children to allow visitation to continue until she entered anger management therapy.

A few months later, the trial court granted sole custody to J.R. without having a hearing, writing that a hearing was not necessary because the “allegations are not controverted” and that S.L. was being charged in three pending cases in the Integrated Domestic Violence part. In two of the cases, the judge said, S.L. was charged with breaking orders of protection prohibiting her from contacting J.R. or the children.

S.L. appealed trial court’s ruling, but in 2015, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the lower court in S.L. v. J.R., 126 A.D.3d 682 (2nd Dept. 2015), writing that, while custody decisions are generally only made following a comprehensive evidentiary hearing, no hearing is necessary when the court “possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident decision as to the child’s best interest,” citing its 2004 ruling in Matter of Hom v. Zullo, 6 A.D3.d 536 (2nd Dept. 2004).

But, on June 9, the Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the Second Department’s decision. The Court wrote that while there should be no “one size fits all” rule mandating a hearing in every custody case, custody decisions should generally be made after a full and plenary hearing. In the case of S.L., there were facts relevant to the best interest analysis that were still in dispute, and the trial court appeared to base its decision on hearsay and on the statements of a forensic investigation whose credibility was not questioned by either party.

While the mother was successful in reversing the trial court’s determination, ultimately, I do not believe that it will make a difference when the case is tried. Given the conduct at issue, it is unlikely that the parties will be able to have a joint custodial arrangement.

I have previously written about situations where a child becomes constructively emancipated as a result of the child’s refusal to have contact with the parent. What happens in situations where a parent is prevented from seeing the child by the other parent? In Coull v. Rottman, 131 A.D.3d 964 (2nd Dept. 2015) the Appellate Division, Second Department suspended father’s obligation to make child support payments.

The father last visited his son in February 2010. For the next several months, he said he would go to the exchange location on visitation days, but often neither the mother nor his son would be there. In one instance, both the mother and the child appeared, but the mother said the boy would not leave the car.

The court also found that the mother assumed an inappropriately hostile stance toward the father and witnesses who testified in his favor. She further stated many times that she would never allow the father to see his child and would do “whatever it takes” to keep the boy away from him.

Given the circumstances, the court concluded that the father’s obligation to pay child support should be suspended. While parents have a duty to continually support their children until they are 21 years old, where the noncustodial parent establishes that his or her right of reasonable access to the child has been unjustifiably frustrated by the custodial parent, child support payments may be suspended.

Further, the relationship between the father and the child had deteriorated and while the boy had participated in therapy for several months to foster a relationship with his father, he remained “vehemently opposed” to any type of visitation with the father. Since the child was 13 at the time of the hearing, and the judge had placed great weight on the child’s wishes, since he was mature enough to express them.

A similar result was reached by the court in Argueta v. Baker, 2016 N.Y. Slip. Op. 01838, where the Appellate Division held that the father had demonstrated that the mother actively interfered with and deliberately frustrated his visitation with the child by failing to provide him with the child’s Florida address, preventing him from seeing the child when he was in Florida, and failing to notify him when the child was in New York. Therefore, the father was entitled to suspension of his child support obligations.

Both parental alienation and parental interference cases turn on specific proof of the child’s and parents’ actions. They may also require testimony of the child. If the parental relationship with the child is already bad, forcing the child to testify is not likely to improve it.

Occasionally, it is not clear whether the parties have a valid marriage which can be critical to such issues such as spousal maintenance and equitable distribution. So what makes a marriage valid?

In a recent decision, a trial court held that a purported marriage between an Orthodox Jewish woman and a man was invalid, even though the parties lived together for ten years after a rabbi performed a marriage ceremony for them without a marriage license. Devorah H. v. Steven S., 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 25228 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co.).

The parties never obtained a marriage license. They were living together with their young children from prior marriages in a small apartment, and sought help from their rabbi in finding more suitable housing when a complaint by the woman’s ex-husband to the Administration for Children’s Services caused alarm. The rabbi found them a larger apartment and suggested they should marry before moving. He then officiated an abbreviated religious marriage ceremony for them on the spot, partially completing a standard form certificate (which he didn’t sign) and urged them to get a marriage license. The parties did not not obtain one, however.

Ten years after the purported marriage ceremony, the woman filed for divorce and the man moved to dismiss, contending they were never validly married. The woman relied on New York Domestic Relations Law Sec. 25, which provides that a “properly solemnized” marriage is valid despite the lack of a marriage license.

After hearing the extensive testimony of the man, the woman, and the rabbi on the issue of whether this marriage was “properly solemnized,” the court concluded that the marriage was invalid, noting particularly the rabbi’s testimony that he had repeatedly urged the parties to “go to City Hall” to get a license, and that they had to know that they would need a new solemnization after a license was issued. The man testified that after they left the rabbi’s office, he had torn up the copy of the certificate that the rabbi gave them.

In the over 100 years since the enactment of DRL Sec. 25, the way citizens marry in New York has changed immeasurably. While at one time the wedding ceremony was the central element of the process, that is no longer the case; church weddings are more and more the exception rather than the rule, and the new wage of marriage ceremonies would be almost unrecognizable to earlier generations. What is key to the process is the marriage license itself. This is not only true for New York, but for the entire nation. After all, when the United States Supreme Court issued its historic decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (576 U.S. – [2015]) making the right to same-sex marriage the law of the land, it did so by decreeing that ‘States are required by the Constitution to issue licenses to same-sex couples’ (emphasis added).

Domestic Relations Law Sec. 25 was also critical to the court’s decision, with the court writing that:

DRL Sec. 25, in its present form, serves no useful function in today’s world. Conceivably, if the statute was amended to allow couples who justifiably believed they were legally married with a valid marriage license to protect the marriage from the claim that the license was improperly executed or otherwise defective, that would certainly serve the public interest. But as it exists now, the statute allows for the wholesale disregard of New York’s licensing requirements – requirements that, as we have seen, play a vital role in insuring that marriages are legally valid. Until DLR Sec. 25 is repealed or reformed, courts will be forced to grapple with situations like this, where the parties fully understood that they did not legally marry but one side seeks to abuse the statute to attain the financial remedies only available to litigants who are married to one another.

The court concluded that “[i]n light of the foregoing, it must be concluded that plaintiff cannot show that she and defendant are married, and therefore has failed to prove an essential element of her prima facie case for divorce.”

The court disregarded the couples’ ten years of cohabitation after the quick marriage ceremony as a basis for finding the woman eligible to seek a formal divorce and disposition equitable distribution of the parties’ assets. The court concluded that the woman could not under the circumstances claim justifiable reliance on a belief that she was in a valid marriage with the man. The court noted that the man, the woman and the rabbi each provided a different account of what happened, leaving the court to sort out questions of credibility, which were resolved against the woman.

So in order for the marriage to be valid, there has to be a marriage license and that the ceremony be performed. Ultimately, it will be interesting to see if this decision will be upheld on appeal.

I have previously written about upcoming changes to New York’s spousal maintenance law. The Governor finally signed the new maintenance law, Ch.269 of the Domestic Relations Law on Friday, September 25th. The Temporary Maintenance provisions became effective 30 days thereafter, on October 25, 2015, and the balance of the law goes into effect 120 days after signing, on January 23, 2016. The new provisions represent a major change from the prior provisions that have been in effect since 2010.

The most significant of these changes is that formulas will now be used to determine both temporary and post-divorce maintenance. In the past, post-divorce maintenance determinations were largely up to the court’s discretion and were usually based upon applicable prior decisions. The following details how the two new formulas will work:

With child support where the maintenance payor is also the non‐custodial parent for child support purposes: (i) subtract 25% of the maintenance payee’s income from 20% of the maintenance payor’s income; (ii) multiply the sum of the maintenance payor’s income and the maintenance payee’s income by 40% and subtract the maintenance payee’s income from the result; (iii) the lower of the two amounts will be the guideline amount of maintenance.
Without child support, or with child support but where the maintenance payor is the custodial parent for child support purposes: (i) subtract 20% of the maintenance payee’s income from 30% of the maintenance payor’s income; (ii) multiply the sum of the maintenance payor’s income and the maintenance payee’s income by 40% and subtract the maintenance payee’s income from the result; (iii) the lower of the two amounts will be the guideline amount of maintenance.

Additionally, numerous other key changes are included.

A $175,000 income cap will be set on all temporary and post-divorce maintenance calculations. This is a major reduction from the current $543,000 cap. Maintenance calculations will now be made before child support calculations, thus allowing child support decisions to consider burdens from the maintenance determinations.

The duration of post-divorce maintenance will now be decided using a new advisory schedule:

Zero to 15 years of marriage: maintenance should last between 15 and 30 percent of the marriage’s duration.
16 to 20 years of marriage: maintenance should last between 30 and 40 percent of the marriage’s duration.
20 years of marriage or more: maintenance should last between 35 and 40 percent of the marriage’s duration.

Further, considerations of “enhanced earning capacity” will end. Until this statute was passed, attorney usually worked with experts to determine enhanced earning capacity, for example, the lifelong value of a professional degree that was earned over the course of a marriage. These calculations will no longer be used in helping to determine spousal maintenance. However, enhanced earnings may still be considered by the court when distributing other marital assets.

The changes to the Domestic Relations Law will likely result in greater uniformity of spousal support awards. Further, elimination of enhanced earnings as a distributable asset represent a major change in New York’s law.

Whenever there are proceedings brought to enforce child support or spousal support awards, attorneys can issue executions against assets owned by responsible party. In M.M. v. T.M., 2015 N.Y. Slip.Op. 25294 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Co. 2015), the trial court held that a retainer paid to an attorney to defend an enforcement proceeding can be subject to an execution by the opposing party.

In M.M., the trial court had to determine whether the execution issued pursuant to the judgment for unpaid spousal maintenance can be used to restrain a retainer held in attorney’s trust account, that was paid to defend the enforcement proceeding. Specifically, defendant-husband objected to the execution stating that ‘to permit the turnover would cause the husband “extreme hardship.'” Further, defendant argued that he held no interest in the escrowed funds and that by virtue of commencing representation, the defendant’s attorney acquired an interest superior to that of the plaintiff.

In addressing these arguments, the court held that the evidence in this case, based on the affidavit from the defendant-husband, was insufficient to meet the extreme hardship test. There was no demonstrated evidence of any “extreme hardship” and no evidence of severe financial impact on the defendant-husband if the funds are subject to the wife’s restraining notice. The defendant baldly asserted that there is such harm, but when push comes to shove, had no extrinsic proof to back up his assertions. There was no evidence of other unpaid creditors or financial hardship to the defendant. In the absence of such factual assertions, the court was not inclined to grant any protective order based on an inherent financial harm to the defendant-husband.

Further, the court addressed the argument that the defendant-husband did not have an interest in the escrowed funds. After reviewing the retainer agreement, the court found that according to the retainer agreement, the retainer paid was a “security retainer” that defendant’s attorney could not draw upon until the work was performed and the client was billed. Until the bill was issued, the funds remained property of the client and the client would be entitled to the funds if the relationship was terminated. Therefore, the court held that defendant-husband continued to hold an interest in the retainer.

Finally, the husband’s attorney argued that his lien interest in the escrowed funds is superior to the plaintiff-wife’s claim for unpaid maintenance. The defendant-husband, in this instance, argued that the retainer funds, which are billed against, but not yet transferred into the attorney’s accounts, are subject to the attorney’s lien for services and that the wife, as a judgment creditor, did not have a superior claim to those funds. The court rejected this argument outright stating that:

To say husband’s argument is somewhat untested in New York is an understatement. This court can find no prior precedents to support this novel theory. In the absence of any precedents and the strong policy preference in New York statutory and case law to allow collection of family support funds, this court is unwilling to recognize that the husband’s counsel’s retaining lien holds a superior position when compared to the wife’s claims against the retainer funds on deposit with counsel.

Given the above, whenever a family law attorney is involved in defending post-divorce proceedings involving claims for unpaid spousal maintenance or child support, that attorney’s retainer is at risk of being restrained and, ultimately, collected by the opposing party. This makes representation of clients in similar circumstances risky and attorney is jeopardizing his chances of being paid. Since the court in M.M. suggested that advanced payment retainer, unlike the advanced payment retainer utilized by defendant-husband’s attorney, would not be considered property of the defendant, then the retainer would not be subject to being restrained. Therefore, utilizing that type of retainer would reduce the risk, however, there may be other issues since New York matrimonial rules frown upon non-refundable retainers. Another option, and probably a better one, would be to have a third party to pay the retainer.

Many custody cases are resolved by agreement. When this happens, the parties often place their agreement on the record, either as an oral stipulation recorded by court stenographer or reduce it to a written agreement. Sometimes, immediately after or some time later on, a party to the stipulation may change his mind and ask that the court vacate the stipulation.

In Jon v. Jon, 2015 N.Y. Slip. Op. 51118(U) (Sup. Ct. Nassau Co. 2015), the plaintiff, immediately after entering into a written settlement stipulation, regretted her decision and changed her mind and attempted to have the stipulation vacated. Plaintiff argued that since she was not represented by counsel, that her agreement was not knowing and voluntary, and it came as a result of overreaching by defendant or undue pressure placed on her.

The court heard testimony of the parties determined that although wife was not represented by counsel, the absence of independent legal representation, without more, did not establish overreaching or require nullification of an agreement. She had the opportunity in just a few hours to negotiate with defendant’s counsel in the presence and with the assistance of a court mediator. She decided to pass on that opportunity.

Furthermore, plaintiff was not significantly disadvantaged by the lack of counsel because she could have obtained equal parenting time with her children if she had only agreed to it. She declined because she did not want the children shuttling between their parents. If defendant was not going to agree to let plaintiff have custody of the children—and he wasn’t—she decided to do what in her opinion was the next best thing: let the children stay with defendant. And she did not identify a single thing she wanted in the stipulation that was not included. Given that the stipulation was drafted and signed in “neutral territory”—the courthouse within earshot of the judge—and since the attorney for the children was present throughout, the absence of an attorney did not render the stipulation unfairly made.

The court concluded that neither the terms of the stipulation nor the circumstances surrounding its execution evidence overreaching on the part of defendant. As a result, the court held that it may “not intrude so as to redesign the bargain arrived at by the parties on the ground that judicial wisdom in retrospect would view one or more of the specific provisions as improvident” or imprudent. Christian v. Christian, 42 N.Y.2d 63, 72 (1977).

The key finding that the court made was the following:

This court does believe plaintiff in one important respect: she freely and fairly made a decision and executed an agreement that she very quickly regretted and desired to change. But there is no statute or case that affords a contracting party the opportunity to change their mind, regardless of how quickly they desire to do so, in the circumstances presented here. This court sees the wisdom in affording to an unrepresented party the opportunity within a short window the absolute right to rescind a custody agreement. That would be plaintiff’s only salvation when faithfully applying the current statutory and common law to the facts in this matter.

Stipulations are meant to bring resolution and finality to the parties. They should not be taken lightly and should be thoroughly understood before being finalized.

On June 24, 2015, the New York State Senate passed Bill A7645-2015 which modified the duration and amount of temporary and post-divorce spousal maintenance. The bill passed the State Assembly on June 15th. It is expected to be signed by Governor Cuomo in the near future.

The new law’s formulas apply to actions commenced on or after the 120th day after the bill become law (except for the temporary maintenance formulas which apply to actions commenced on or after the 30th day after the bill become law). The new law can not be used as a basis to change existing orders and agreements.

The new law represents a very significant change to the post-divorce spousal maintenance provisions of Domestic Relations Law §236, as well as temporary spousal maintenance provisions that were passed in 2010.

As to maintenance, the following are the key aspects of the law contained in the Sponsor’s Memo:

The “cap” on the payor’s income used for the maintenance formula is $175,000, above which will be a matter of the court’s discretion. This reduces the cap (which now applies only to temporary pendente lite maintenance) from $543,000. The same $175,000 cap applies to post-divorce maintenance awards.

The statutes creates two formulas: one where child support will be paid to the maintenance recipient; and one where child support will not be paid, or where it will be paid to the maintenance payor. Those formulas are as follows: a. With child support where the maintenance payor is also the non-custodial parent for child support purposes: (i) subtract 25% of the maintenance payee’s income from 20% of the maintenance payor’s income; (ii) multiply the sum of the maintenance payor’s income and the maintenance payee’s income by 40% and subtract the maintenance payee’s income from the result; (iii) the lower of the two amounts will be the guideline amount of maintenance; maintenance payor is the custodial parent for child support purposes: (i) subtract 20% of the maintenance payee’s income from 30% of the maintenance payor’s income; (ii) multiply the sum of the maintenance payor’s income and the maintenance payee’s income by 40% and subtract the maintenance payee’s income from the result; (iii) the lower of the two amounts will be the guideline amount of maintenance.

First, maintenance gets calculated. Next, child support is calculated using the income of the payor after subtracting maintenance to be paid, and the income of payee income, including maintenance received.

The court may adjust the guideline amount of maintenance up to the cap where it finds that the guideline amount of maintenance is unjust or inappropriate after consideration of one or more factors, which are to be set forth in the court’s written or on the record decision. Where there is income in excess of the cap, additional maintenance may be awarded after consideration of one or more factors, which are to be set forth in the court’s decision or on the record.

When determining temporary maintenance, the court can allocate between the parties the responsibility for payment of family expenses” while the divorce action is pending. The definition of income for post-divorce maintenance will include income from income-producing property that is being equitably distributed. New factors in post-divorce maintenance will include: termination of child support, income or imputed income on assets being equitably distributed, etc. The duration of post-divorce maintenance is a function of a formula that includes ranges of different percentages of the marriage length, depending on how long the marriage lasted. For marriages of zero to 15 years, the guideline for maintenance awarded would be 15% to 30% of the length of the marriage; for marriages of more than 15 up to 20 years, maintenance would be 30% to 40% of the length of the marriage; for marriages of more than 20 years, maintenance would be for 35% to 50% of the length of the marriage. However, nothing prevents the court from awarding non-durational, post-divorce maintenance in an appropriate case.

In determining the duration of maintenance, the court is required to consider anticipated retirement assets, benefits and retirement eligibility age. Actual or partial retirement will be a ground for modification of post-divorce maintenance assuming it results in a substantial diminution of income.

As an example of the application of the formulas, consider the following calculations where a) the payor is the non-custodial parent and having C.S.S.A.-adjusted income of $150,000, and the payee is a custodial parent having C.S.S.A.-adjusted income of $50,000; and b) the payor and payee have the same incomes but there are no children being supported.

Additionally, the new law eliminates value of a spouse’s enhanced earning capacity arising from a license, degree, celebrity goodwill, or career enhancement as a marital asset. This is a significant change from the existing law. However, enhanced earnings may still be considered by the court when distributing other marital assets.

The changes to the Domestic Relations Law, once effective, will likely result in greater uniformity of spousal support awards. Further, elimination of enhanced earnings as a distributable asset represent a significant change in New York’s law.

Under New York law, child support consists of two elements: “basic” child support and the “add-ons.” Domestic Relations Law §240 (1-b)(c)(4) and Domestic Relations Law §240 (1-b)(c)(6) provide that when a custodial parent is working, seeking work, or is in school or training which will lead to employment, reasonable day care expenses will be allocated in a ratio equal to the each parent’s income to the combined income.

The parties occasionally dispute whether child care expenses are reasonable. Most often, these disputes tend to focus on the cost and need for daycare. Thus, the court usually needs to conduct a fact finding hearing to determine whether such costs are appropriate and the child care was actually needed. In Pittman v. Williams, 127 A.D.3d 755 (2nd Dept. 2015), the court reviewed the parties’ child care costs and determined allocation of the costs. The court held that

where the custodial parent is working . . . and incurs child care expenses as a result thereof, the court shall determine reasonable child care expenses and such child care expenses, where incurred, shall be prorated [and] [e]ach parent’s pro rata share of the child care expenses shall be separately stated and added” to the parent’s basic child support obligation (see Matter of Scarduzio v Ryan, 86 AD3d 573, 574 (2nd Dept. 2011)). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the mother incurred $425 in child care expenses each week. However, the court erred in calculating the amount of child care expenses to be paid by the father. Since the child care provider cared for both the subject child, as well as the mother’s son from a previous relationship, the child care expenses should be divided equally between the two children. Consequently, the cost of caring for the subject child is $212.50 per week, and the father’s pro rata share of the child care expenses is $191.25 per week.

Thus, when the need and the costs of child care are disputed, both of these issues need to be analysed and the parties need to be able to offer evidence either in support or opposition. Parenthetically, unless the costs of child care are grossly excessive, courts do not tend to deny parties reimbursement in situations where the child care was needed.